P. v. Harris
Filed 3/21/08 P. v. Harris CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RONNY HARRIS, Defendant and Appellant. | A119369 (SolanoCounty Super. Ct. No. FCR 230227) |
Defendant Ronny Harris appeals his conviction by court trial to grand theft from the person of another (Pen. Code, 487, subd. (c)) (count 1), evading an officer (Veh. Code, 2800.2, subd. (a)) (count 2), and misdemeanor destruction of evidence (Pen. Code, 135) (count 3). Allegations regarding three prior strikes and four prior prison terms were found true. He was sentenced to 29 years to life in state prison. Counsel has advised that examination of the record reveals no arguable issues. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant has filed a supplemental brief.
Background[1]
In the afternoon of February 4, 2006, the victim, 76-year-old Jacquelin Draves, parked in the parking lot of a Vacaville store and exited her car. As she was retrieving her purse from the back of the car, she felt a tug on her purse strap and the purse came off her shoulder. The victim heard someone yell, turned around and saw a man running toward a car with her purse.
Vacaville Police Officer Brad Shehan received a dispatch about the robbery and a description of the car fleeing the scene. Shehan spotted the car, a Chevy Blazer, and a high speed chase ensued, which finally ended in Walnut Creek. Shehan saw a passenger in the car throw a purse and other small objects out of the window of the Blazer. At the Benicia Bridge, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) took over the pursuit and eventually took defendant and his passenger, Norma Johnson, into custody. Police later recovered the victims purse, checkbook and drivers license from the shoulder of Interstate 80.
Vacaville Police Officer Jeffrey Higby interviewed defendant after admonishing him pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436. Defendant admitted pulling the purse off the victims shoulder, that he drove out of the parking lot in the Blazer with Johnson as his passenger and drove on the freeway to elude police.
Defendant executed a written agreement to a slow plea based on the preliminary hearing transcript and police reports, and agreed to waive any hearsay objection as to those documents. He also waived his rights to a jury trial, to confront and cross-examine witnesses. The written agreement also advised defendant that if convicted, he faced a maximum sentence of 54 years to life in prison. He agreed to a bifurcated court trial on his prior conviction allegations.
At the November 2006 court trial, defendant was again advised of his right against self-incrimination and waived that right. The court found defendant guilty on the three counts and found the priors true. The findings were supported by substantial evidence.
In August 2007 defendant moved the court to dismiss two of his prior strike conviction allegations on the grounds they were remote and his criminal history was attributable to drug addiction. The court denied the motion after properly considering the evidence and concluding that defendant was a person within the three strikes law. Defendant was properly sentenced to 29 years to life as follows: (1) a 25-years-to-life term on count 1 (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(ii), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(a)(ii));[2](2) a concurrent 25-years-to-life term on count 2; and (3) a consecutive four-year term on the four prior prison terms ( 667.5, subd. (b)). Count 3 was stayed pursuant to section 654. The court also properly imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $10,000 parole revocation fine which was suspended pending successful completion of parole ( 1202.45). The court properly determined defendant was entitled to 581 days of actual credit plus 290 days of presentence custody credit ( 4019). Defendants request for a certificate of probable cause was properly denied.
Defendants supplemental brief requests that we modify his sentence to one that is short enough so that he can look forward to parole, but raises no arguable issues.
We conclude defendant was competently represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. There was no error in the proceedings or the sentence imposed.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
SIMONS, Acting P.J.
We concur.
NEEDHAM, J.
STEVENS, J.*
Publication Courtesy of California attorney referral.
Analysis and review provided by Vista Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] Because the parties submitted the case to the trial court based on the preliminary hearing transcript and police reports, the background facts are derived therefrom.
[2] All undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.
* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, First District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
